Amatucci v. NH Supreme Court

2014 DNH 080

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: April 22, 2014
• Docket: 13-CV-502-SM
• Status: Published

Opinion

Amatucci v. NH Supreme Court 13-CV-502-SM 4/22/14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Josephine Amatucci, Plaintiff

v. Case No. 13-cv-502-SM Opinion No. 2014 DNH 080 The New Hampshire Supreme Court, Defendant

O R D E R

Josephine Amatucci, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,

filed this civil action against the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

Her complaint is subject to preliminary screening pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

Ms. Amatucci brings what might best be described as an

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She complains that the New

Hampshire Supreme Court “abused its discretion” when it

“dismissed her case against her public defender.” Complaint, at

para. 4. In so doing, says Amatucci, the state supreme court

violated her constitutionally protected right to due process.

She asks this court to “reverse the judgment of the New Hampshire

Supreme Court” and to “allow this case to go before a jury for

[an award of] damages.” The Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes this court from

reviewing the decision of the New Hampshire Supreme Court (even

if it were persuaded that the state court’s resolution of

Amatucci’s claims was legally incorrect). See Rooker v. Fidelity

Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923); District of Columbia Court

of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983). See also Wang

v. New Hampshire Bd. of Registration in Medicine, 55 F.3d 698,

703 (1st Cir. 1995) (“Constitutional claims presented to a United

States district court, and found to be ‘inextricably intertwined’

with state court proceedings, impermissibly invite the federal

district court, ‘in essence,’ to review a final state court

decision. Lower federal courts are without subject matter

jurisdiction to sit in direct review of state court decisions.”)

(citations omitted).

Moreover, the New Hampshire Supreme Court is immune from

suit for monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See, e.g.,

Johnson v. Rodriguez, 943 F.2d 104, 108 (1st Cir. 1991) (“It is

settled beyond peradventure, however, that neither a state agency

nor a state official acting in his official capacity may be sued

for damages in a section 1983 action.”). And, monetary claims

against the individual justices are barred by the doctrine of

judicial immunity. See generally, Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S.

349, 356-56 (1978); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967).

2 To the extent Amatucci believes the New Hampshire Supreme

Court erred in its resolution of her underlying state court

action, her remedy is (or was) to file a petition for certiorari

in the United States Supreme Court.

Conclusion

The complaint fails to state any viable cause of action.

Amatucci shall have 30 days to file an amended complaint either

seeking relief that the court is empowered to grant, or naming

defendants who may be required to pay damages.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________ Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge

April 22, 2014

cc: Josephine Amatucci, pro se